GIS6005: Map Design & Typography

 

   This week's lab focused on the basics of cartography including map elements, hierarchy, placement, legibility, and readability while also reinforcing typographic approaches in map design.

For the visual contrast aspect of the above map, all the features and recognizable due to their common color scheme (grass is green, water is blue) with not one of the features being over/underrepresented and not impeding on one another. It is very easy based on the chosen color scheme to distinguish one feature from another. 

The legibility of my map, without the labels as instructed, is legible, not overbearing and has an appropriate legend to check out the symbology. The symbols, colored more brightly than the neutral gray background, are sufficiently sized and legible.

The figure-ground organization and hierarchical organization is achieved through the natural eye movements of the viewer from top left to right and down. The title is centered at the top followed immediately by the map frame in the middle of the layout for the viewers maximum attention. After that, the legend is off towards the bottom left so that the viewer can easily locate items on the map and stands out in its gray box against the white background. All the features we want the viewer to see are sized sufficiently according to their importance.

Lastly, the placement of the map elements makes sense and supports the map’s purpose, although there is some white space. Going back to deliverable 2, if I had more details, I could add a small description to the map in the white space beneath the map frame going into more detail of what recreational activities the city of Austin has to offer. However, I believe the main map features do still stand out and balance is achieved.

The labels placed on the above map are all the same font, Time New Roman, a serif font, of varying sizes according to their spatial size and importance within the map. The placement of the labels is in the center of the main bodies they represent, with placement consideration based also on proximity to adjacent labels. Some labels, such as those over top “busy” areas such as line-heavy roads in the city, were given halos to help with legibility. These halos allow for easier comprehension as they stand out over these features, helping the viewer understand the hierarchy of the label is more important than the roads beneath them.

Water feature labels were made with italic font and given a blue coloration to distinguish themselves from the other labels. Their font size is consistent and rather large given their representation of a greater spatial area. One label, Lake Merced, used a curved text to help the label fit entirely inside the shape it represented.

The general landmarks such as Marin Peninsula, Treasure Island, etc., are all uniform in size with some features requiring halos and others not. The largest label on the map is San Francisco itself, as it is the focal point and most recognizable feature on the map. It’s the top of the visual hierarchy and the labeling defends that.

The last three categories, Park Names, Landmarks, and Topographic features, are all the same font size, type, and include halos. These are the smallest labels on the map due to their small spatial area being represented. The labels, however, are not hard to locate and are legible to the average viewer.